Gill v. Gill
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chaucer}'- Court. Thomas B. MARTIN, Chancellor. There was never such an occupancy as impresses the homestead character on property. Mere intention to occupy is not sufficient. 31 Ark. 466; 22 Ark. 400. The occupancy must be by the husband, in his lifetime, and as a residence. Const. Ark. § 5, art. 9; 33 Ark. 399. The fact that the homestead claimant is only a co-tenant with another does not deprive him of his right to claim his homestead.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chaucer}'- Court. Thomas B. MARTIN, Chancellor. There was never such an occupancy as impresses the homestead character on property. Mere intention to occupy is not sufficient. 31 Ark. 466; 22 Ark. 400. The occupancy must be by the husband, in his lifetime, and as a residence. Const. Ark. § 5, art. 9; 33 Ark. 399. The fact that the homestead claimant is only a co-tenant with another does not deprive him of his right to claim his homestead. Freeman, Cot. & Part. § 54; 35 Ark. 50; 27 Ark. 659; 41 Ark. 95. While mere intention to occupy a homestead is not alone equivalent to…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
E. G. Gill, a resident of this state, and a married man, purchased a half lot in the city of Little Rock, Tallied at $1,050 for a homestead. Gill and his wife packed up some of their household goods, preparatory to moving. He and she went over to the house, where they expected to live, and fixed a lock on the door. He was taken sick, but he directed his wife to hire some one to assist her in moving. She did so, and cleaned up the new house. Then, with the hired help, whom Gill paid for the work, she packed up some household goods and kitchen furniture, such as bed, bedstead, carpets, cooking…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Charless v. LambersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- Gower v. WinchesterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Christy v. DyerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
- First National Bank v. HollinsworthSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
- Tumlinson v. SwinneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bank of Sun Prairie v. HovigDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1963
- Chastain v. Arkansas Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Gebhart v. MerchantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Shell v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- McKenzie v. RumphSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.